Let's face it, he doesn't give a shit whatever anyone thinks about his comments, so there's no point wasting time thinking about his obnoxious drivel.

Clarkson is smartly making a career out of being an 'Offensive Lout'. It's not very intelligent of British public service to provide him with hours of airtime, and, presumably, financial renmuneration. As a Swede who appreciates the BBC, it's nasty when the company veers towards Berlusconi tactics in search of the vulgarity vote.

Graeme Hancocks - I am not defending him, I dislike the guy. It is just that this is one case where Unison (and others) have shown themselves to be idiots.

It is only offensive if he wanted you to think he meant it. He clearly said it as satire. The people who have been offended by this are probably the same people who were outraged by the Brass Eye "Paedodophilia" episode.

At least one NS commentator has it right: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/clarkson-comment-...

I've said nothing about the railway comment. But I think you misjudge "decent people". Plenty of decent people go to stand-up shows and pay to hear comments like that night in, night out. There should be no no-go areas in comedy. I don't find the railway comment indecent, but the setting was inappropriate.

The real problem with Clarkson's comment was that he really wasn't serious.

The world would be a better place if you whinging lefties were lined up and shot.

I have had life-threatening illnesses that were funnier than Jeremy Clarkson. he should be taken outside in front of his family.........and just left there........until the bin lorry comes.

@Daniele

"twat ... Disgusting"

You said it.

Clarkson said it as a joke. He even said it wasn't his opinion straight after. Unfortunately many left-wing publications like the Guardian are only showing a small edited clip that doesn't make clear that it's a joke.

Personally I think this incident only reveals that the left can be as dirty as the right when it wants to harm someone for no reason other than they have different political views.

Gezza is a dude!!!

It maybe fine for people to have the "right" to be offensive. What about the "right" to be offended? I haven't seen the actual broadcast so not able really judge if he was joking. However people who want to be controversial never do it directly to the intended recipient. Just in case it results in a smack in the gob.

if carol thatcher had not been sacked and andy gray not been sacked and many others i would not give a shit. However if there is going to be consistency Clarkson should be fired immediately. But then again Clarkson's target did not fit the definition dreamed up by rich north london types who run the bbc. He didn't offend women, ethnic minorities or homosexuals just the plain old white working class striking over conditions which is obviously fair game. And people wonder why far-right groups like the EDL are flourishing and stupid ideas like "blue labour" are popular

Excepting this article, that tries to put his comments in the context of the perfectly justified stroke action, I'm puzzled why so many people writing for the New Statesman are so blase about the Clarkson story. I really think it is actually quite important. I have tried to examine why here:

http://representingthemambo.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/clarkson-gets-mambo...

The only thing people should do is just to ignore him, but even that is failing, God - the Left must exercise some self discipline.

Can we have an NS article on why the priavte sector isn't fighting to improve their pesnions? I know the comments section isn't a request service but it just seems like something that is swept under the carpet among all this. Public sector workers joined a strike due to proposals on pensions that would make them work more and receive less. People in the priavte sector who say their pensions are much worse seem to accept their lot, stand by and do nothing. There's got to be a story in why that is the case.

Len's Legs - the reason is simple really. In teh public sector there is a single employer and so the workers can all club together and make collective demands. In the private sector in the modern age there are few employers who employ lots of people doing the same job (old large scale manufacturing). Instead you have lots of smaller employers, or large corporates who employ people doing a range of tasks. It is a competitive market and employers offer the "market rate" to any new employees. It has been a long time since final salary schemes were considered market rate in the private sector. The employees are simply not going to demand those extra benefits when there is a queue of people behind them willing to take the job at what is market rate. Private sector employees lost collective bargaining power a long time ago, but the flip side is that there are few true private monopolies in the private employment sector either and so employers cannot quite call all of the shots - except when there is a recession and people will accept anything just to keep their jobs.

Clarkson made a few sick jokes. JOKES! Get over it. He's an overpaid nob yes but don't be such idiots.

Graeme Hancocks writes, 'No decent person can think this is ok.'

Sanctimonious crap. No 'decent' person allows their wife or servant to read Lady Chatterley's Lover. As soon as anyone reaches for the 'decency' card we know we're in the presence of bilge. Clarkson is a twat and all people like you have done is give him thousands of pounds worth of free publicity.

Nice argument, except that you base your point on the assumption that these comments were actually Clarkson's views and that he was saying what he thought. If you see the whole interview it is clear that they were not his views.

He started off by saying how great the strikes were (admittedly for purely selfish reasons - typical Clarkson). Then, he mentioned that "this is the BBC so we need balance", he put on a mock-outraged voice and reeled off a short rant of an extreme anti-union rant. It was clear that he was being satirical. The audience got it as they laughed. The presenters failed to get it as they looked embarrassed and said "these are Jeremy's views" to which he replied "no they're not, I'm just giving you two views".

So it is a storm in a teacup based on a misunderstanding.

I am more worried by the double standards shown by Unison in calling for someone to be sacked when they have clearly misunderstood the situation. Try doing that to one of their members and there'll be a very different reaction.